Q: This verse states that desire is a natural quality of the jiva —
न्याय दर्शन १.१.१० — इच्छाद्वेषप्रयत्नसुखदुःखज्ञानान्यात्मनो लिङ्गम्।
“Desire, hatred, effort, happiness and distress and knowledge are the symptoms of the ātmā. “
A: This is the view of nyāya. In nyāya, knowledge is in the ātmā. Vedānta does not agree. But even in nyāya, knowledge cannot be in ātmā without conjunction with the mind. Without the mind, ātmā has no consciousness in nyāya. The ātmā is like a jaḍa padārtha when free from the mind. So mixing nyāya and Vedānta is a mistake.
So those modern Gaudiya sects that subscribe to the view that the ātmā is full of knowledge and bliss and desire, are unaware that they are actually accepting the nyāya view and rejecting the Vedānta view.
Q: Can you give proof of the Vedānta view?
A: That is very simple to prove. Consider verse 13.6 from the Bhagavad-Gītā —
icchā dveṣaḥ sukhaṁ duḥkhaṁ saṅghātaś cetanā dhṛtiḥ
etat kṣetraṁ samāsena sa-vikāram udāhṛtamdesire, aversion, happiness, distress, the aggregate [of the elements, called the body], awareness, and fortitude —
all this is described in brief as the field of action along with its modifications.
Śrī Kṛṣṇa Himself states that desire is part of the body. Śrī Viśvanātha comments —
icchādayaś caite mano-dharmā eva na tv ātma-dharmāḥ | ataḥ kṣetrāntaḥpātina eva |
Desire and other items [ in the verse] are the qualities of the mind, and not of the ātmā. Therefore, they are included in the body only (kṣetra).
Pranams,
I Ithink the sloka you mentioned is 7.27..but I saw Baladeva vidyabhusan stating they are atma dharma only and explains why they are coined as mano dharma in the sloka
icchādayaś catvāraḥ prasiddhāḥ | saṅkalpādīnām upalakṣaṇam etat | ete mano-dharmāḥ,kāmaḥ saṅkalpo vicikitsā śraddhā dhṛtir hrīr dhīr bhīḥ [bṛ.ā.u. 1.5.3] iti śruteḥ | yadyapy ātma-dharmā icchādayo ya ātmā ity-ādau satya-kāmaḥ satya-saṅkalpaḥ iti śravaṇāt, paṭhed ya icchet puruṣaḥ iti sahasranāma-stotrāt, puruṣaḥ sukha-duḥkhānāṁ bhoktṛtve hetur ucyate[13.20] iti vakṣyamāṇāc ca, tathāpi mano-dvārābhivyakter mano-dharmatvam
Radhe radhe. Reading what he writes, it fits into the idea that the atma has icchatva but not iccha. The mind is Jada so it cannot desire. The atma cannot hold a thought – so it cannot have a desire. My reply above is about specific desires which are thoughts. No thoughts can be inside the atma. No content knowledge can be inside the atma. In nyaya, however, atma holds content knowledge. The job of the citta is done by the atma in nyaya – they don’t have a citta.
But the atma has the capacity to desire, the capacity to experience, the capacity to know, etc – and when in contact with mind, the mind can process thoughts, register experience, process content knowledge etc.
This is how one can reconcile Sri Baladeva’s writings with Sri Visvanatha and Sri Krsna’s teaching in the verse. Iccha is mano dharma , but icchatva is atma dharma
satya sankalpa etc are Paramatma’s qualities which the atma is awarded at the time of liberation. I have written about this elsewhere.
Thank you,but how can icchatva directly exist in atma without it having iccha guna in it,since icchatva is jati for iccha guna..
Well I used the word icchatva carelessly. I don’t mean it as a jati of the guna. I mean it as the agency to desire. Like jnatrtva- the jati of knowership. So what is the Sankrit word for desirer ship..?
Another point worth clearing up. At Jiva institute, we accept explanations of the sastra by the Sad Goswamis and Sri Visvanatha Cakravarti. We accept Sri Baladeva only when he does not go against the above. Else we pay our respects to him but do not accept his interpretations. If you can cite any statement from Sri Jiva Goswami that iccha is an atma-dharma, I will agree with you.
It is interesting to note that Sri Baladeva goes against Sri Visvanatha explicitly—
icchādayaś caite mano-dharmā eva na tv ātma-dharmāḥ
Sri Visvanatha states here that iccha and others are qualities of the mind alone (Eva) but not of the atma (na tu atma dharma).
And Sri Baladeva disagrees – yadyapi icchadayas atma dharmAh!
Yes,he disagrees..That’s why I got a doubt about whether my understanding is true.Thank you
I was just checking paramatma sandarba..In anu 19 discussing the svarupa lakshnas of jiva padma purana clearly says jñānāśrayo,cetana etc..
Regarding jnatrtva etc..I checked the anu 36 where babaji comments
“Experiential capacity, however, is nothing but the awareness of the feelings of happinessand misery, for which there must be a conscious being. Therefore, experiential capacity cannot belong to the inert body or mind.”
The above is same as jnana visesa.
I don’t understand what you are trying to say. Are you arguing that iccha is in the atma? That content knowledge is in the atma? And are you trying to prove these from Babaji’s writings or Sri Jiva’s writings?
Your position is now unclear to me..
I am just trying to understand what Jiva Goswami is saying..that’s why I quoted from him and Babaji’s commentary on this concept..It seems both align with baladeva vidyabhushan only regarding iccha etc.
Yeah there is no alignment. I think you should read the numerous posts on this topic on this site which go in depth. Let’s stop the messages now.